HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

I have a problem with the HF top 50 list

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-16-2013, 12:04 PM
  #1
poneill27
Registered User
 
poneill27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Casterly Rock
Country: United States
Posts: 663
vCash: 500
I have a problem with the HF top 50 list

I have a few questions about this list.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/article...-nhl-prospects

1- How do these get made? Do any mods on the Flyers board participate? If so who was in on it? Do you guys type your opinions or do it over Skype? A conference call? Do certain peoples opinions hold more weight? Why? Seniority? Did they yell louder than everyone? Type in caps? I'm seriously wondering.

2- Does anyone here disagree with it? Mods or Chris Shafer had to vote at least for Laughton a little bit to be in the top 50.

The HF list has Matt Dumba at 27. Approx half way.

The Hockey News has Scott Laughton 5 spots ahead of Dumba in a NHL scout re-draft.
http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...NHL-draft.html

So according to NHL scouts Laughton is ahead of Dumba and according to HF (I love HF and I am not trying to be incendiary just trying to understand) According to HF Scott Laughton isn't even in the same ball park. Someone who knows please explain the process.

poneill27 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2013, 12:06 PM
  #2
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,140
vCash: 500
Might get better feedback on the prospects board.

Jack de la Hoya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2013, 12:13 PM
  #3
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,301
vCash: 156
Yeah, the prospects board will give you better answers. The mods aren't involved in that stuff, there's only one other mod on the site who also does this stuff, that i know of. He isn't a flyers mod.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2013, 12:16 PM
  #4
poneill27
Registered User
 
poneill27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Casterly Rock
Country: United States
Posts: 663
vCash: 500
So no one from here knows how it's done? I guess I'm too lazy to re type this into another thread.

poneill27 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2013, 12:18 PM
  #5
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by poneill27 View Post
I have a few questions about this list.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/article...-nhl-prospects

1- How do these get made? Do any mods on the Flyers board participate? If so who was in on it? Do you guys type your opinions or do it over Skype? A conference call? Do certain peoples opinions hold more weight? Why? Seniority? Did they yell louder than everyone? Type in caps? I'm seriously wondering.

2- Does anyone here disagree with it? Mods or Chris Shafer had to vote at least for Laughton a little bit to be in the top 50.

The HF list has Matt Dumba at 27. Approx half way.

The Hockey News has Scott Laughton 5 spots ahead of Dumba in a NHL scout re-draft.
http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...NHL-draft.html

So according to NHL scouts Laughton is ahead of Dumba and according to HF (I love HF and I am not trying to be incendiary just trying to understand) According to HF Scott Laughton isn't even in the same ball park. Someone who knows please explain the process.
I disagree with it.

I think Laughton deserves to be in the top 50.

That said, Laughton is certainly not top 27, and neither is Dumba.

I was not a member of the top 50 committee. I have chosen to abstain from it since Giroux and vanRiemsdyk were both involved. I felt really no need since we didn't have the prospects to jump in.

Laughton is the first player we've had since then who is top 50, but even if I disagree, I'm only one of quite a few writers.

There are a lot of opinions out there, and you can't expect any kind of top 50 ranking to be easy when it's a ballot among a number of people.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2013, 12:18 PM
  #6
BrimFullofAsham45
Registered User
 
BrimFullofAsham45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,458
vCash: 500
These lists have long been a joke.

BrimFullofAsham45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2013, 12:24 PM
  #7
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by poneill27 View Post
So no one from here knows how it's done? I guess I'm too lazy to re type this into another thread.
Generally it's a committee of 5 members that go and write out their top 50s.

The votes are tallied to make a master top 50.

It is then posted on the Staff Board for everyone to share and discuss.

From there players are moved around the board until everyone has generally settled, given concessions, and moved on.

Laughton probably deserved a spot, but as I have stated before, grading between writers works differently. While I grade rather conservatively for our prospect pool, others are more aggressive and feel that ceiling vs floor should be further apart when creating grades.

I'm not going to say that my decision to grade Laughton as a 7.0B (which he will be in the forthcoming top 20) hurt the discussion, but it could not have helped.

People who didn't know more about Laughton among the Staff Members would possibly have seen that as a lack of faith is his game-breaker ceiling, which is fairly correct to a point.

Then again, I give far more credence to NHL playable potential rather than absolute ceiling. Players closer to the NHL will get higher rankings than players with higher potential but farther away from an impact (hence why Cousins will be below Gustafsson in my upcoming ranking even though they were opposite in the fall -- which will probably make a few of you pull out your hair and get all pouty, but thus is life).

It's just the way I grade as opposed to other writers, and since my opinions through the grades are pretty much the baseline for opinions other writers would take, they get used to the extent necessary.


Last edited by CS: 04-16-2013 at 12:30 PM.
CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2013, 12:25 PM
  #8
poneill27
Registered User
 
poneill27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Casterly Rock
Country: United States
Posts: 663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
I disagree with it.

I think Laughton deserves to be in the top 50.

That said, Laughton is certainly not top 27, and neither is Dumba.

I was not a member of the top 50 committee. I have chosen to abstain from it since Giroux and vanRiemsdyk were both involved. I felt really no need since we didn't have the prospects to jump in.

Laughton is the first player we've had since then who is top 50, but even if I disagree, I'm only one of quite a few writers.

There are a lot of opinions out there, and you can't expect any kind of top 50 ranking to be easy when it's a ballot among a number of people.
So it is a ballot system. Is there any discussion before or after or is it more cut and dry- here's your ballot, have it in by Tuesday?
EDIT. Didn't see your last post.

poneill27 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2013, 12:28 PM
  #9
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrimFullofAsham45 View Post
These lists have long been a joke.
As I said before, they're much easier if one person decides them, but really no one person should have that power because he would not have had ample time to watch every prospect.

I also feel that the general consensus among the Flyers' board is that NHL readiness is more important than potential to an extent.

A lot of those players mentioned definitely have more potential than Laughton, but Laughton is definitely going to be an NHLer, while many of them will fizzle out into obscurity.

It's a catch 22, and you really can't please everyone.

I feel that scouts and GMs take an approach similar approach to mine (and that of the Flyers' board) when redrafting and discussing players. Most are even more conservative at the NHL-readiness vs. potential factor.

HF is not designed like that. It is designed to cater to the populous that is HFBoards. Sensationalism, higher draft number, and high point totals get your name in the paper so to speak.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2013, 12:42 PM
  #10
poneill27
Registered User
 
poneill27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Casterly Rock
Country: United States
Posts: 663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Generally it's a committee of 5 members that go and write out their top 50s.

The votes are tallied to make a master top 50.

It is then posted on the Staff Board for everyone to share and discuss.

From there players are moved around the board until everyone has generally settled, given concessions, and moved on.

Laughton probably deserved a spot, but as I have stated before, grading between writers works differently. While I grade rather conservatively for our prospect pool, others are more aggressive and feel that ceiling vs floor should be further apart when creating grades.

I'm not going to say that my decision to grade Laughton as a 7.0B (which he will be in the forthcoming top 20) hurt the discussion, but it could not have helped.

People who didn't know more about Laughton among the Staff Members would possibly have seen that as a lack of faith is his game-breaker ceiling, which is fairly correct to a point.

Then again, I give far more credence to NHL playable potential rather than absolute ceiling. Players closer to the NHL will get higher rankings than players with higher potential but farther away from an impact (hence why Cousins will be below Gustafsson in my upcoming ranking even though they were opposite in the fall -- which will probably make a few of you pull out your hair and get all pouty, but thus is life).

It's just the way I grade as opposed to other writers, and since my opinions through the grades are pretty much the baseline for opinions other writers would take, they get used to the extent necessary.
AHH... OK. Thank you.

So I agree with Gus ahead of Cousins for now since he is playing in the NHL = NHL readiness. But what does 7B mean as Laughton's grade? 7 is scale of 1-10 and B as in A,B,C,D. I get that. What I mean is who in the NHL is a 7B and is 7B his ceiling or right now he's a 7B. Also if you were to put Laughton in the top 50, where do you see him?

poneill27 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2013, 12:50 PM
  #11
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by poneill27 View Post
AHH... OK. Thank you.

So I agree with Gus ahead of Cousins for now since he is playing in the NHL = NHL readiness. But what does 7B mean as Laughton's grade? 7 is scale of 1-10 and B as in A,B,C,D. I get that. What I mean is who in the NHL is a 7B and is 7B his ceiling or right now he's a 7B. Also if you were to put Laughton in the top 50, where do you see him?
9.0 is like Crosby.
8.5 is great first liner/All-Star.
8.0 is average/good first liner.
7.5 is great second liner.
7.0 is average/good second liner.
6.5 is great third liner.
6.0 is average/good second liner.
5.5 is great fourth liner.
5.0 is average/good fourth liner.

That's how I interpret the "potential" grades.

Now for the ability to reach that...

A - pretty much guaranteed to reach the potential grade number given
B - could fall one number
C - could fall two numbers
D - could fall three numbers
F - could fall four numbers / not reach potential at all

So a 7.0B means he falls between the range...

6.0, 6.5, or 7.0

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2013, 01:24 PM
  #12
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
My problem with the prospect rankings is that 3/4 of the players seem to be 7.0 C

Make it out of 100

Krishna is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2013, 01:34 PM
  #13
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
My problem with the prospect rankings is that 3/4 of the players seem to be 7.0 C

Make it out of 100
We've discussed changing up the entire system.

The .5s are already an expansion. Expanding even more would make it convoluted.

Basically, the only option now would be a complete restructuring of how we grade.

Could that happen? Sure, we could do it. It would take a while to implement though, even if it should get past the discussion round. On top of that, how would we even guarantee its success?

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2013, 01:41 PM
  #14
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
We've discussed changing up the entire system.

The .5s are already an expansion. Expanding even more would make it convoluted.

Basically, the only option now would be a complete restructuring of how we grade.

Could that happen? Sure, we could do it. It would take a while to implement though, even if it should get past the discussion round. On top of that, how would we even guarantee its success?
Honestly, anything is better than the current system

The 7C for pretty much every single player is stupid

Something like this would be fine :

Skating
Hockey Sense
Shot
Playmaking ability
Hands
defensive play
Anything else I forgot

Krishna is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2013, 01:45 PM
  #15
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Honestly, anything is better than the current system

The 7C for pretty much every single player is stupid

Something like this would be fine :

Skating
Hockey Sense
Shot
Playmaking ability
Hands
defensive play
Anything else I forgot
Well I guess we could do an NHL game based rating system like that...

But that's a lot more effort and a lot harder to work through for very little reward in that we would still be ridiculed horrifically for our efforts.

I'm not trying to play the pity card or anything, but people like overall grades because it's easy for them to digest.

I never said that we are any better than ESPN on a macro level. On an individual level though, I like to think that many of us do a decent enough job considering the amount of access we are given in general.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2013, 01:48 PM
  #16
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
Also, it would be nice if the players' page said what they actually play like

Something like talking about their playstyle and maybe a comparable.

It seems like it's hit or miss with the play style being posted on a prospects page

edit :

Take for example Erik Gustafsson

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/erik_gustafsson/

If another fan clicks the page to see what he is like, he'd have no idea what he is like.

Krishna is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:51 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.